GOLDFIELD TKAGEDY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10734, 3 November 1928, Page 5

GOLDFIELD TKAGEDY

THE DEATH OF JOE SHU AI HA JURE FOUND GUILTY Oh' AfANS LAUGHTER SENTENCE DEFERRED TILL NEXT WEEK (Press Association.) DUNEDIN, Nov. 2 The trial of William John Hardie charged with having murdered Joe Leong Slium at Kyeburn on July 17 was concluded in the Supreme Court to-day before Justice MacGregor and a jury. Air F. B. Adams conducted the case for the Crown, and Air A. C. Hanlon appeared for the accused. A total of 35 witnesses were heard tor the Crown.

No witnesses were called for defence and after counsel had addressed the jury His Honor, in summing up, stressed the noint that the evidence of Sue Peel the principal witness for the Crown, .was quite urn shaken. The four main features of the evidence that could lie taken as corroboration of Sue Pee’s evidence were: (1) Hardie's movements before and after the tragedy; (2) the footprints at the edge of the claim ; Cd) the sab 1 of the gold with its peculiar characteristics: (4) the extraordinary story of the exhibition photographs. There was no need for him to go into the evidence in de tail, but he would say there certainly was a substantial body of evidence in support of the view taken by the Crown Tb<» evidence had been subjected to severe and able criticism by Air Hanlon, and the jury must decide for themselves how that evidence had been affected os the result. As to the possession of the gold by Hardie, there was no doubt that the gold came from Shunt's claim, and it seemed clear that accused had stolen it from Shum. His Honor proceeded to read extracts from Hardie’s statement to the police to demonstrate the unreliability of his story. There was, he said, only one conclusion to come to in, that connection, namely, that accused used Jjkese falsehoods in an endeavor to throw the police off the scent and avert suspicion from himself, Regarding any suggestion that Sue Lee t was , the guilty man His Honor said the jitry had only-to apply the test of motive to his case. Would the old inan lingering out his days on the gold claim murder his employer on whom he was dependentT Then was Ins subsequent conduct consistent with that of a, guilty or an innocent person. He had set out for help on a cold dark night and had done everything that air innocent man might bo expected to do. To that he was the culprit, implied that his whole evidence was a fabrication. Un the -other hand, Hnrdie’s story was so contradictory as to ,m ake it unworthy of credence. What the jury must "decide was, whose story should be believed, Hardie’s or Sue Pee s. After a retirement of a little under two hours, the jury returned with a verdict of. manslaughter . Accused was remanded till next week for sentence. ... •His Honor commended the police for the manner in which they had conducted the ease,